The absence of clear evidence for a bribe demand and indications of mala fide intentions in filing the complaint justify quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present application has been filed initially for quashing the FIR vide Crime No.26 of 2022 dated 20.01.2022 registered with Beed Rural Police Station, District Beed and later on, by way of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.193 of 2024 (Charge-sheet No.19 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024) pending before the learned Special Judge, under Prevention of Corruption Act/District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke for the applicant, learned APP Mr. A.D. Wange for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State and learned Advocate Mr. H.V. Tungar for respondent No.3.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has taken us through the entire charge-sheet, especially the complaint and the FIR lodged by respondent No.3. He submits that respondent No.3 claims that he is an Advocate and he also works as agent or representative of private vehicle for the works in Regional Transport Office, Beed. He takes consent from the vehicle owners when they are in need of documentation to be done for transfer of vehicle, getting various certificates regarding vehicle, entering the encumbrance on vehicle etc. for which he charges. About 4-5 owners of the vehicle had given him authority to act in their behalf for getting certain certificates a week prior to his complaint dated 16.09.2021. He, therefore, met the applicant on 15.09.2021. The applicant told him that for each certificate he will have to pay amount of Rs.2000/- and at that time, then he asked the applicant as to whether it is a Government fees. The applicant replied that if he is paid amount of Rs.2000/- per vehicle, then only he will issue the certificate, otherwise he will not issue the certificate or declare the vehicle to be fit. Learned Advocate for the applicant raises doubt as to whether the Advocate can act in such capacity as agent in Regional Transport Office (for short “R.T.O.”) when in the R.T.O. it is prohibited for anybody to approach the Government as agent. The complainant also states that he met one private person by name Pravin Gaikwad, who also confirmed that amount of Rs.2000/- will have to be given per vehicle for getting the certificate. Therefore, complainant says that he got knowledge that the said amount has been asked as bribe. He was not willing to pay the same and, therefore, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. After laying the pre-trap panchanama and then post trap panchanama in the trap, ultimately, it was not successful. The FIR was lodged. Interesting point to be noted is that the alleged trap was laid on 20.10.2021 and the FIR has been lodged on 20.01.2022. There is inordinate delay. The complainant has tried to give his own reasons as to why the applicant would not have accepted the amount and not even then contacted him. He then states that he had discussion with the police officer on 19.01.2022 and then the FIR came to be lodged. Here, in this case, everything is suspicious. Even if we consider the conversation that is alleged to have taken place, still it can be considered that there is absolutely no demand from the present applicant. The complainant was asking as to how much he should give in respect of truck. His acceptance of bribe is an offence, giving it or attempt to give it, is also an offence and, therefore, with this material, though the sanction appears to have been given, yet it would be an abuse of process of law, if the applicant is asked to face the trial.

4. Learned APP is relying on the affidavit of one Deepti Parag Parulekar, the Desk Officer, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai inf